Coming to a landfill near you —

Death by incompatibility: A Samsung Galaxy Gear review

Samsung built a smartwatch but forgot to make it do stuff.

When a new article is posted on the Internet, the first addition to the comments section is often an inconsequential, one-word statement: "First!"

The frequent "First!" cry of the Internet troll declares some strange pride in being the first to comment on an article. The commenter put little to no effort into the post; it added nothing to the conversation, and it was completely devoid of substance. The troll did secure the spot at the top of the thread, though, and every additional commenter will be forced to scroll past the pointless contribution.

The Samsung Galaxy Gear says "First!" in hardware form. Samsung has beaten Google and Apple as the first major manufacturer to market, but much like the Internet commenter, it has sacrificed substance for the sake of timing. The Galaxy Gear is a product (with some impressive internals, no less) that has such limited use and such crippling compatibility requirements that it is currently the equivalent of hardware spam. While the Gear won't even come close to serving the needs of the vast majority of people, we're going to be talking about smartwatches a lot in the coming months, so if nothing else, the Gear provides a great starting point.

The hardware

Before we get into the list of deal-breakers, though, let's talk about the actual device. The face of the Gear features a 1.63-inch, 320×320 AMOLED touchscreen. A macro shot reveals the screen to have an S-stripe subpixel layout, the same display tech used in the Note 2. The Gear's display is passable, but the 277PPI means this is not the super-dense pixel party to which we've grown accustomed. Samsung's software doesn't push the display very hard, though, so it's not a big deal.

The exterior of the case is pretty sparse, with only a power button and a few pinhole mics on either side. In this tiny space, Samsung manages to pack a 800MHz Exynos 4212 processor, 512MB of memory, 4GB of storage, and a whopping 315 mAh battery. CPU-Z recognizes the Exynos as a dual-core chip, but the second core seems to be permanently disabled.

Enlarge/ One side of the band, which houses a 1.9MP camera and a speaker in the clasp.

The most unique aspect of the Galaxy Gear is that there are electronics built into the entire watch. Unlike the Pebble (or a sixth-gen iPod Nano equipped with a watchband), which has a "dumb" band and contains all the electronics in the body of the watch, the Gear integrates a 1.9MP camera into the watchband and a speaker into the clasp. The side effect of this is that the band is a permanent part of the watch—you won't be seeing swappable bands any time soon.

Enlarge/ The stiff, supportive band of the Galaxy Gear stops it from resting on a wrist like a normal watch.

At about 11 mm (0.43") in depth, the case of the Gear is the normal thickness of a wrist watch. There's nothing about the depth that should make it look bad or geeky—men's jewelry watches are usually in the 5-14 mm range. Despite being in the size range of a normal watch, the Gear still looks unusual on the wrist thanks to the rubbery watchband. A normal chain link watchband is full of hinges, so it can never "support" the watch. With no support, the watch collapses onto the wrist, and any slack in the band will hang down by the clasp. The Gear's rubber band, however, is so stiff and supportive that any slack will cause the watch to "float" around your wrist and appear much thicker than it is. It's more like wearing a rigid bracelet than a real watch. The picture above tells the tale. On a table, a normal watch collapses into a heap, but the Gear is so stiff that it's self-supportive.

It seems that the primary reason for the rigid band is to give the camera a home and a sturdy connection to the rest of the phone. Considering the Gear requires a smartphone to be useful, the only reason for it to have a camera is convenience—you're guaranteed to have a much better one in your pocket. Without the camera, Samsung would only need to stash the speaker somewhere, and the band could be removable—or made out of something classier, like metal or leather. That would have helped its appearance dramatically.

The Gear with the charger case attached.

The front of the charger case, with pogo pins.

The open charger case, and the back of the Gear. The gold pogo contacts transfer power from the plugged-in charger to the Gear.

The back of the charger case, with micro-USB port.

The clasp.

One neat solution Samsung has come up with: the Gear has no on-board micro-USB port. Rather than make the watch thicker, the Gear's micro-USB port is offloaded to a separate "charging case." A plastic shell clips around the watch and connects to the internals via pogo pins on the bottom of the watch case. The shell has a door that surrounds the screen and locks into place for a secure connection. There is even an NFC chip in the charger to easily pair the Gear to your Samsung phone.

Samsung's designers adorned the front of the case with faux leather plastic and stitching. Unlike the Note 3, though, this isn't soft touch plastic, just hard, regular plastic, so it's more like faux faux-leather.

The software

The Galaxy Gear runs a heavily customized version of Android 4.2.2 (some parts are still referred to as "Touchwiz"). Navigation is fast and easy: Android's Back button is handled by swiping down from the top of the screen, tapping the power button works as Home, and there is the occasional on-screen menu button in the top right of the screen.

The software functions similarly to Google Glass. Everything is in a simple, horizontal UI. The "home screen" is a configurable watch face that can show the time, date, weather, and/or app shortcuts. Swiping left and right will take you through your primary apps, one at a time; tapping on an icon will open the app. Pretty simple stuff. The watch connects to your Samsung phone via Bluetooth and has a companion app that you can use to configure settings, install apps, and even make the Gear ring for easy locating if you lose it.

The Gear will turn on when you lift your arm up to check the time. Indeed, it can pretty reliably detect when you're looking at it thanks to the accelerometers. The detection feels pretty slow, though. You're staring at a blank screen for about a second before it kicks on. It's definitely not "glanceable," and the short delay is irritating.

The software itself is unattractive. It's a bleak mix of black, white, and orange coupled with primitive artwork. It reminds me of Android circa Gingerbread or Froyo, when the UI looked like something some programmer threw together in his spare time. The black background is probably to conserve power on the AMOLED display, but if you've ever used a 6th gen iPod nano, you know small devices don't have to be like this. So many screens are so completely devoid of color, you'd be forgiven for thinking the display was only capable of three colors.

The above middle screenshot is of one of the cooler features—the media controls. This app will act as a remote Bluetooth controller for whatever music app you currently have open on the paired device. It will display the track name while playing and allow you to adjust the phone's volume.

There's no keyboard, so other than the touchscreen, your only other form of input comes via a stripped-down version of S-Voice. You can dictate text messages (but not e-mails), make phone calls, launch apps, add calendar events, and bring up the weather, all with your voice. There's no answer service, though (for instance "how old is Barack Obama?"), and despite the integrated speaker, S-Voice never speaks. It just quietly displays what you asked for.

S-Voice is extremely slow—you can really feel the 800MHz processor chug. It usually takes a few seconds to open and a few more to respond to a spoken command. Performance across the board is not very good. Indeed, the UI drops animation frames all over the place. After using the device, I felt like I was back in the stuttery Android dark ages.

Enlarge/ Phone calls work great, and here is a rare instance of the Gear displaying actual colors. I am also obligated to mention "Dick Tracy."

Phone calls are the best piece of functionality on the Gear. The device is basically a wrist-mounted speaker phone. You can dial with S-Voice or with a microscopic dial pad. You can answer incoming calls, hang up, mute, or pass the call to your Bluetooth headset or smartphone. The quality on either end isn't spectacular, but it's a watch—what were you expecting?

Ron Amadeo
Ron is the Reviews Editor at Ars Technica, where he specializes in Android OS and Google products. He is always on the hunt for a new gadget and loves to rip things apart to see how they work. Emailron.amadeo@arstechnica.com//Twitter@RonAmadeo

I'm going against the trend here and rooting for Samsung on this one. I actually switched to the Note 3 specifically for this watch. There's a certain appeal to the slightly awkward calculator-watch vibe that this thing captures for me. Then again, I also used a Fossil Wrist PDA for a few years...bought that from an Arsian here on the Agora, in fact.

The Gear is a little half baked, based on what I've heard from reviews. That being said, I like the functionality that is there, and I think that most of the problems can be addressed with updates. The problem is, if no one buys it, those updates will never come. Someone's gotta take the risk and stumble through the early adoption phase, and complain loud enough that the issues get fixed.

I have high hopes for the Gear. I love the idea of wearable tech in wristwatch form. (Google Glass is just too alien for me to fully embrace, a watch is more my style.) I like the idea of a companion device that expands my personal technology bubble, and keeps my phone stashed away in my backpack - especially when dealing with a monstrous rig like the Note 3. Being able to quickly grep a text message or even an email title on the Gear will make the watch useful for me, and S-Voice/Speakerphone functions will let me live out my Knight Rider fantasy.

I'm also going to pre-order an Omate TrueSmart sometime before December. It's similar, also a bit geeky and awkward, but it does manage to pack in more features than the Gear. It wouldn't really take place as a companion device to another larger unit, which is somewhat disappointing to me, but the lure of what could be a great gadget watch is too strong to resist. We'll see which one makes it into 2014 on my wrist.

I'm amazed that the charging solution is in the list of positives. Does the author ever travel? The cleverness of that giant thing will seem brilliant only until you're stuck somewhere with a dead Gear battery and the five MicroUSB cables in your bag...

I actually hit up the comments to say this. Are they trying to build an Apple like system of nonstandard cords? If so thats yet another reason this product sucks.

Having worn a pebble since February, I can't see why anyone would think this is 'first'. I like the idea of being able to use it as a speaker/mic, but I don't see why color matters. My pebble displays notifications from any app I want (with a special app on my smartphone) and does it well. I can't read the whole email, and I can't respond to anything, but I can tell if I need to respond or not and THAT'S what the smartwatch is for.

9/10 times I get a notification on my phone I don't need to deal with it right then, if at all. The smartwatch saves my phone's power and my time by letting me quickly dismiss the notification. And pebble does that. It's waterproof, I can see it in the sun and at night, I can control music with it, I can use it with my phone like a pedometer (with the right app, of course). I've been complemented several times on how it looks, though I wouldn't say it looks as good as my citizen.

The battery lasts between 3 and 7 days, depending on how much I use it (meaning how many notifications I respond to). I'd say that's pretty damn good.

It could do things better, but it does what a smartwatch needs to do many times better than this. And it works with Apple and Android (Sorry windows phone).

I don't know about Sony's smartwatch, but this sounds like a dud, and it's certainly not first.

This is why it is tough to succeed as an Android vendor - the reviewers are hell bent on being most rational If Apple would've done the same thing, the fan club would still be extolling its virtues and we would never get a chance to dispute - thus making it The Truth(TM)(C).

Samsung comes out with a poorly implemented, poorly designed, and poorly thought out product, and your first thought is to blame its failure on "rationality" (Samsung's?) and blame Apple?? Seriously, the fact that this product is a disaster demonstrates the rationality of Android vendors?

What some folks might not know is that Samsung has been in the smart/camera-watch business for quite a while now.

A good 12-15 years back, my wife got me for our anniverary a Samsung camera watch that had some primitive data features as well as a b/w camera with a very low res, it was like 120x82 or something.

It connected to PC via included serial cable. Could store around 50 pics If I remember correctly. It was pretty amazing for it's time, especially in size. It was noticably thicker then a regular watch, about double the height with standard width, but that really was amazing for shoehorning a CCD and a b/w LCD screen into that size at that time.

It was a bit too big to use as a 'spy' camera and black/white limits the value of 'creeper shots' with it but it was still very useful in the same manner a camera phone is today for snapping quick images of things to remember/compare, name your reason. It was also not overpriced, I know she didn't pay more then $100 for it.

A shame they couldn't be ahead of the curve with this version so many years later.

I wish to hell I had kept it, but it vanished during one of the house-movings.

This thing gives me so much nostalgia for the Palm OS watch I had in 2003. It was ridiculously impractical, but it was so damned cool.

Even if I was the only one who thought so.

Actually, the Palm OS watch might be a better option(with today's tech): PalmOS is fairly rudimentary; but it's up to the task of formatting and displaying notifications piped in over a serial link (even if you might have to tell it that it's an IRDA link just to keep it from freaking out, I forget when BT support was added); but it was responsive on its 66MHz m68k microcontroller, and that's the sort of thing that could probably actually be delivered in a slim package with decent battery life on today's silicon and display technology...

Android is really overkill for something like this, and the weirdness of the device means that it doesn't buy you too much in terms of 3rd party applications support.

As a previous owner of the Wimm Smartwatch, I can see a possible problem with the charger design.

My wimm had similar contacts on the bottom of the watch for charging. The problem is that these contacts are constantly getting sweat on them and thus salt. The salt builds up, causing the outside of the contacts to corrode. In the Wimm's case, this meant that eventually you could no longer charge your watch.

I wonder if Samsung has done anything to address this? For the Wimm, it was a problem that occurs about 2 months into light usage, 1-3 times per week. I wonder if they've done enough actual testing with their product to encounter this problem.

Question: What advantages in the UI does the watch provide to account for the fact that unlike a smartphone the user only has one hand to operate it?

Well, maybe it's just me but if a smartphone needs two hands to be used, then it's too big.

That said, I don't really understand your question. It sounds like you want the watch to be a mini-phone and, as such, it should have a similar UI?

Or you're asking what the watch could do that doesn't require one arm (with the watch on it) and one hand? The only feature that comes to mind is the watch's display switching back on when you raise your arm.

Interesting device, and for everyone bashing functionality, remember that functionality right now is all about software, which can be updated fairly easily. Just look at the difference in the pictures of the Moto X that ARS covered a few weeks ago. Look at the story behind the iPhone original release which was just out the other day (buggy, prone to crashing during the demo, etc).

Yes, Samsung might have put something out that could (definitely!) use a little more refinement, but that's just a matter of pushing out a software update. It has potential...

Except that's a pretty big "IF". And Ars can't review a product based on it potentially getting a magic software update to make everything better. They have to review it as it is now.

This is why it is tough to succeed as an Android vendor - the reviewers are hell bent on being most rational If Apple would've done the same thing, the fan club would still be extolling its virtues and we would never get a chance to dispute - thus making it The Truth(TM)(C).

As for the Samsung Watch - it's an OK first iteration - no doubt Samsung will improve it down the line and it isn't exactly hard to get the software on it to do more things with more Android phones.

Apple never would have let something this half baked leave the engineering labs.

Watch nerd here. (The total value of my watches exceeds that of my computers, so I imagine I qualify.)

If I may make a few suggestions... Take the 'Siricusa OSX Review' approach to the ergonomics. Take pictures of reviewed smart watches on one small feminine wrist, one big masculine wrist, and provide their wrist circumference measurements. Bonus: tell us the minimum and maximum fitting wrist size.

Those things, along with the excellent ergonomics critique you already have, will make the Ars reviews best in class of any watch.

This is why it is tough to succeed as an Android vendor - the reviewers are hell bent on being most rational If Apple would've done the same thing, the fan club would still be extolling its virtues and we would never get a chance to dispute - thus making it The Truth(TM)(C).

Absolute horseshit, and proof you spend no time in any Apple online communities. They're some of the nit-pickiest, demanding, and critical people I've ever encountered. And if you think the fanboys outnumber the critical ones in the Apple community compared to Android, go hang out in The Verge for a while then come back and try to say that again with a straight face.

1. Standalone usefulness a. Great running / fitness device without phone - built in GPS, maybe even heart rate monitor. b. Excellent music app c. 3G for notifications (Maybe even some phone calls, but the 3G could be in a highly power managed state)2. Style3. At least 48 hours of battery life

With the discussion on the relative size of this item to a men's watches, I propose that any smartwatch reviews in the near future also include a picture of said smartwatch on Casey's small, feminine wrist.

Encase your already large watch in a silver or gold colored case, add some rhinestones to make it even bigger, and you have successfully converted the most gigantic men's watch into a fashionable ladies watch for dressing up.

Go check out some watch counters and you'll see.

It is something I personally hate, giant wristwatches are style right now for men and for women.

Seriously though. I love the idea of smart wathces, but I wish they would make a notification protocol, and maybe a new low-power wireless standard if bluetooth uses too much power. I don't want Android or iOS on my wrist and I don't want a watch made by a phone manufacturer either. I just hope they can popularize a protocol, and then I could get a watch made by a traditional watch maker that would include a lower-power OLED display for notifications and perhaps two buttons on the side or with touch for rejecting/accepting calls, postponing/acknowleding alarms and control music playback.

I doubt Apple would make or even dream of supporting an open standard. So that leaves me to hoping Google or a major Android manufacturer does the right thing. Not looking too good so far, but hopefully this Samsung product will draw attention and then flop, so Samsung takes another less stupid go at it.

This is why it is tough to succeed as an Android vendor - the reviewers are hell bent on being most rational If Apple would've done the same thing, the fan club would still be extolling its virtues and we would never get a chance to dispute - thus making it The Truth(TM)(C).

As for the Samsung Watch - it's an OK first iteration - no doubt Samsung will improve it down the line and it isn't exactly hard to get the software on it to do more things with more Android phones.

As hard to believe as it may be, there is no one as hard on Apple as the Apple product user community. No matter what Apple comes out with, we always seem to find something that we think they should have done to it, as well as things that they shouldn't have done to it.

The problem is that we have higher expectations of Apple, and are disappointed when they sometimes miss them.

Even reviews of Apple products nitpick where they don't with other company's products. Everyone seems to expect that Apple will be perfect every time, and as that's impossible, criticisms abound. If course, there's the troll community as well, but I prefer to ignore them as much as possible, except when they simply tell untruths. But we can see, even here, that Apple's problems are more often reported upon that those of other companies.

Of course, if a company puts out a well marketed product such as this, the reviews will come fast, and hard, as the company is challenging the organizations to say something, and so they respond. As of late, Samsung has gotten itself into hot water.

As a previous owner of the Wimm Smartwatch, I can see a possible problem with the charger design.

My wimm had similar contacts on the bottom of the watch for charging. The problem is that these contacts are constantly getting sweat on them and thus salt. The salt builds up, causing the outside of the contacts to corrode. In the Wimm's case, this meant that eventually you could no longer charge your watch.

I wonder if Samsung has done anything to address this? For the Wimm, it was a problem that occurs about 2 months into light usage, 1-3 times per week. I wonder if they've done enough actual testing with their product to encounter this problem.

If they make the contacts out of 304 stainless steel, which is fairly common, corrosion won't occur.

At least some of the notification problems aren't Samsung's fault. Gmail notifications just don't carry the information you'd like to see here. Even in stock Android they contain just the name of the sender (or a number if more than one email) and no ID to go back and load more of the email.

What version of android are you using? The GMail notifications on 4.3 over here show the first few lines of the message as well, as do the corresponding notifications on the Pebble, so this seems to be a Samsung-specific problem AFAICT.

"A smartwatch will not be successful without a vibrant ecosystem of hardware and app developers."

Tell that to Steve Jobs as he announces the first iPhone, which did not allow third-party apps and as far as Jobs could make it, only supported Apple's accessories. How did that turn out? Not that Samsung is Apple, but if you build something good enough, they will come. edit: Although I suspect the original iPhone was a better phone than this is a watch.

you got voted to oblivion because ppl thought you were slandering Steve Jobs when in fact you make a very valid point: if a product is good enough the developers will come regardless if you intend there to be an app ecosystem or not.

ppl often forget, or willfully ignore the fact that Jobs didn't want apps on the iphone and that the browser was supposed to take care of any usage outside of core utilities of the device.

"A smartwatch will not be successful without a vibrant ecosystem of hardware and app developers."

Tell that to Steve Jobs as he announces the first iPhone, which did not allow third-party apps and as far as Jobs could make it, only supported Apple's accessories. How did that turn out? Not that Samsung is Apple, but if you build something good enough, they will come. edit: Although I suspect the original iPhone was a better phone than this is a watch.

you got voted to oblivion because ppl thought you were slandering Steve Jobs when in fact you make a very valid point: if a product is good enough the developers will come regardless if you intend there to be an app ecosystem or not.

ppl often forget, or willfully ignore the fact that Jobs didn't want apps on the iphone and that the browser was supposed to take care of any usage outside of core utilities of the device.

For the thousands upon thousands of games that the app store offers today, it's easy to forget that there were no games when it was launched.

I recently saw a rerun of The Lab With Leo where Leo Laporte bemoans the fact that "there are no games for the iPhone, when it would be such a great device for them!"

You know the real problem here is not the product but what ppl expect or want from the product.

just look at what you will be working with; a 2.5 " screen. What exactly do ppl expect to do or see on it?

my stance has always been that wearables are viable but they need to be cheap, easily swappable to suit occasions and clothing style and they need to have a defined function.

the idea that smart watches are going to be an extension of our more general purpose smartphones is absurd and unrealistic. Battery life is a concern. Cost is another. Practicality is another. Use case is another. Purpose is another. Size is another. Styling is another.

these things need to be mono/dedicated use devices you can swap out like jewelry. That's what they should be. When ppl speak of a companion device, what thy are saying is, a smartphone on our wrist, which just isn't workable.

This is why it is tough to succeed as an Android vendor - the reviewers are hell bent on being most rational If Apple would've done the same thing, the fan club would still be extolling its virtues and we would never get a chance to dispute - thus making it The Truth(TM)(C).

As for the Samsung Watch - it's an OK first iteration - no doubt Samsung will improve it down the line and it isn't exactly hard to get the software on it to do more things with more Android phones.

Apple never would have let something this half baked leave the engineering labs.

Not even as a "hobby" project? What about the first iPhone - they had to lie and cheat just to get through the demo. It didn't have apps at launch, it was only 2G, had crap battery life etc.